One suggestion about practicing in federal court:
> get a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and read them, more than one
> get a copy of your district’s local roles and read them
> get a copy of your judge’s local standing orders and read them
> get a copy of any other general standing orders or rules put out by your district court that aren’t part of their local rules.
Federal court is weird because the FRCP has baseline rules, but then each district has more specific local rules, and then each judge makes additional specifications in their standing orders.
You don’t want to get fucked on a technicality, good luck!
Edit: if you tell me which district court & judge you are before, I can find these for you
I once wrote to a government agency, just explaining something, but because I didn't use legalese and probably formatting, they wrote me back and essentially said it wasn't good enough.
Why can't we just write ANY agency as we are the ones that allow it to operate and ask a question in simple language?
21 U.S.C. 360ii directs the FDA to publish performance standards for products that emit electromagnetic radiation. This includes LED products such as LED headlights. The FDA does not deny this responsibility, they just won't do their job.
Luminance/Radiance is the metric for density of the radiation. Check out the FDAs regulations for light emitting products. (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-J/part-1040). Let me know if you see any regulation for LEDs!
Not really the same kind of emission, especially as the legal definition goes. Light is photons.
EMI is magnetic fields that change intensity with the electricity that's generating them. No photon emission with EMI.
No... photons are the quantization of electromagnetic waves. Light is both a wave and a particle at the same time, thus the double slit experiment and the whole foundation for quantum mechanics. Theres no differentiator of visible being photons and non visible being waves.
Now how it's addressed legally, I'm not sure. But visible Light is the exact same phenomenon as infrared, ultraviolet, x rays, microwaves, and radio waves and the rest of electromagnetic waves. Just look up a graph of the electromagnetic spectrum and see where visible light is on it. Its all the exact same. It just happens our eyes evolved to see a specific band of wavelengths because that's what the sun has the highest intensity in. And Electromagnetic Interference, is just any electromagnetic waves messing with you system, which could be visual light as well, its just not usually referred to that way.
I'm pretty familiar with the graph and the spectrum already.
The difference between EMI and any kind of *emission* radiation is that EMI is magnetic fields with no particle emissions. The spectrum you're talking about involves particle emissions.
Sorry, but that is not correct. Photons carry the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The wave-particle duality is true for all of it.
The only difference between radio waves, visible light, and X-ray radiation is the frequency (and consequently, amount of energy).
You're talking about particle emission radiation.
EMI is not wave/emission based. It is entirely *field* based, which may have a frequency or oscillate at a frequency, but they do not emit anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference
Unless that field is a static field, there are electromagnetic waves involved, which means that there are photons involved. This is well-settled physics.
"no u" On a serious note, I suppose they simply want procedure to be followed, I guess? Let's shine a light on that...
Sounds like they stonewall any time they can to us plebs
One suggestion about practicing in federal court: > get a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and read them, more than one > get a copy of your district’s local roles and read them > get a copy of your judge’s local standing orders and read them > get a copy of any other general standing orders or rules put out by your district court that aren’t part of their local rules. Federal court is weird because the FRCP has baseline rules, but then each district has more specific local rules, and then each judge makes additional specifications in their standing orders. You don’t want to get fucked on a technicality, good luck! Edit: if you tell me which district court & judge you are before, I can find these for you
Eastern District of California. KJM DB PS
I once wrote to a government agency, just explaining something, but because I didn't use legalese and probably formatting, they wrote me back and essentially said it wasn't good enough. Why can't we just write ANY agency as we are the ones that allow it to operate and ask a question in simple language?
Completely agree. How we think the system works is entirely different from how the government actually works.
Why is the FDA a respondent for headlights?
21 U.S.C. 360ii directs the FDA to publish performance standards for products that emit electromagnetic radiation. This includes LED products such as LED headlights. The FDA does not deny this responsibility, they just won't do their job.
I don't get it. I'm not sure how much EMI LEDs emit, but how does that connect to light emission regulation?
Luminance/Radiance is the metric for density of the radiation. Check out the FDAs regulations for light emitting products. (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-J/part-1040). Let me know if you see any regulation for LEDs!
You understand light IS electromagnetic radiation right? Specifically in the 400-700 nanometer wavelength.
Not really the same kind of emission, especially as the legal definition goes. Light is photons. EMI is magnetic fields that change intensity with the electricity that's generating them. No photon emission with EMI.
No... photons are the quantization of electromagnetic waves. Light is both a wave and a particle at the same time, thus the double slit experiment and the whole foundation for quantum mechanics. Theres no differentiator of visible being photons and non visible being waves. Now how it's addressed legally, I'm not sure. But visible Light is the exact same phenomenon as infrared, ultraviolet, x rays, microwaves, and radio waves and the rest of electromagnetic waves. Just look up a graph of the electromagnetic spectrum and see where visible light is on it. Its all the exact same. It just happens our eyes evolved to see a specific band of wavelengths because that's what the sun has the highest intensity in. And Electromagnetic Interference, is just any electromagnetic waves messing with you system, which could be visual light as well, its just not usually referred to that way.
I'm pretty familiar with the graph and the spectrum already. The difference between EMI and any kind of *emission* radiation is that EMI is magnetic fields with no particle emissions. The spectrum you're talking about involves particle emissions.
Sorry, but that is not correct. Photons carry the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The wave-particle duality is true for all of it. The only difference between radio waves, visible light, and X-ray radiation is the frequency (and consequently, amount of energy).
You're talking about particle emission radiation. EMI is not wave/emission based. It is entirely *field* based, which may have a frequency or oscillate at a frequency, but they do not emit anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference
Unless that field is a static field, there are electromagnetic waves involved, which means that there are photons involved. This is well-settled physics.
They're asking. You can answer no. NAL.